The County Split

By reenee, Santa Maria

For a long time now I've been railing against splitting the county of Santa Barbara. However, I've been at a loss for words over this entire subject in polite company. None of it has ever made sense to me. The first issue is the least important. The name: Mission County? Whose bright idea was that one? The second issue: Who benefits? Not me, I'm not a big oil company, nor am I a developer who stands to reap millions more if this boneheaded idea goes forth. Anyway, I'd begin to unravel every time I thought about it, then I found this fine editorial by Marianne Partridge, dated May 11, 2006 in the Santa Barbara Independent. So naturally I ripped it off, after condensing it a wee bit here and there, and adding my own thoughts hoping that she doesn't mind, since I included her link. So, here it is:

"If Measure H passes, it would be a disaster of epic proportions for everyone. In particular, those of us stuck in the economic chaos of the new Mission County and then those stranded in what would be left of Santa Barbara County. If you care about the environment, good government, the plight of the poor, regional planning, or common sense, then splitting Santa Barbara County would be an assault on any rational thought. Surely we all understand by now that a new county would be very good for private developers like Jim Diani, who has underwritten loans to the county split effort totaling $240,000."

Hmmm, I wonder, who would get those contracts for new county buildings?

"The proposed plan is to split Santa Barbara County at the Gaviota Pass. The new county would include Hollister Ranch, Point Conception, the Santa Ynez Valley, Santa Maria, the majority of agricultural land, rolling hills, and open space. And it would include Lake Cachuma, the single most important humanmade source of water for the entire South Coast. Why would the south county vote to be separated from Lake Cachuma? To believe proponents of Measure H, with their bland assurances that the new county will honor Santa Barbara’s old water contracts, flies in the face of reason. It also defies California’s entire history of water, politics, and power.

If the proposed Mission County were to be approved, it would begin with a $30 million budget shortfall. Nice huh? The Governor's special commission concluded that the whole idea was economically unviable. Even if its sales taxes were raised by one cent it wouldn't be enough. The only way to balance the budget would be to cut services at least 35 percent. That means less law enforcement, less fire protection, less help for the poor, and fewer road repairs."

Not a problem for those that don't have these issues.

"Another thing, the new county would be forced to pay its fair share of the old Santa Barbara County’s capital debt, its workers’ pensions, and other retirement costs. Hotel bed taxes won't help raise money because it has few of the tourist attractions found in the South County, most notably accessible beach frontage. So how will Mission County ever be able to pay for anything?"

Oil companies, of course.

"The most immediate and lucrative way to increase property tax revenue would be to allow offshore oil development and the building of its requisite onshore processing facilities. Why would this be a problem? Aside from the obvious concerns of air and water quality, the biggest problem is the profile of oil companies operating in Santa Barbara County today. Instead of the old energy companies like Exxon and Chevron, we’re seeing smaller, more opportunistic companies fighting for the last drops of oil. Even if the new county had the will to implement strict environmental standards, most of these companies wouldn’t have the money to comply with them.

Those are just a few reasons why anyone living north of Gaviota should vote against the split. But why should South County voters care? In fact, it’s no secret that some environmentalists are quietly hoping the split occurs. The reasoning is that all the pro-growth lobbyists will suddenly leave the slow-growth residents of southern Santa Barbara alone: “If we never have to hear that obnoxious Andy Caldwell whine again, so be it! Let them build and pollute to their hearts’ content.” It might sound appealing, but it plays out badly.

Air, water, and ecosystems do not recognize county lines. Traffic, pollution, and toxins travel. Those environmentalists hoping to preserve valley oaks, steelhead trout, or other endangered species should remember that most of these still exist only because of the wild, open ranchlands in the north. The irreparable damage that a desperate new county government could do — goaded by developers spouting property-rights jingoisms while actually promoting get-rich schemes to build cluster-housing on agricultural land — will truly be awesome. For the wildlife — flora, fauna, and cowboy alike — it will be a death sentence: one passed, in part, by any South County environmentalist voting for the county split.

And what will happen to the funding necessary for commuter rail or other new transportation options? All those commuters from the north will not be quitting their jobs down south. To do anything about traffic, we must use the whole tax base of the present Santa Barbara County.

But perhaps the most moral, principled reason for anyone to vote against a county split is the recognition that the majority of our poor will be isolated in a virtually bankrupt new county. Surely this would be an act of cruelty."

See? Wasn't that better than me simply saying "Aaacckk!! Vote NO!!"

So now I'm asking, are the proponents of the split really all that focused on those that will be hurt the most, or are they focused on dollar signs?